Recently I have been engaged in multiple discussions concerning the H.R. 3200 – America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. In this I will attempt to combine these separate discussions into this one article in hopes of being able to direct those who would wish to debate the issue to this post.
I will not begin by providing a biography or background of myself in order to shed light on the reasons behind my viewpoint of the health care bill. My prior papers and articles should suffice to give an understanding as to the origin of the views made here. I will say that I am not with any political party, and the Republican Party did not fund my research by paying for my internet connection or the electric bill to keep my computer running. The anger that I harbor was only manufactured by those that would “fundamentally change America.” Therefore, on that point alone it may be correct in saying that my anger has been “manufactured.”
From communists to anarchists, communist/anarchist, and everything in between have debated their view of the new government health care bill with me. I need to be the first to admit that I am not a medical practitioner, pharmaceutical, nor a lobbyist with education in any of these fields; however, I am a concerned citizen and that is all the credentials that I require to study and form an opinion of H.R. 3200. I find it somewhat amusing how all those but the communist and communist/anarchist deny that this bill is fundamentally communist.
First, a short lesson in vocabulary according to the Webster dictionary:
1. communism – a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2. fascism – 1 : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
3. progressivism – 1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
2 : a member of any of various U.S. political parties: as a : a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans
4. jingoism – extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy
5. totalitarianism – 1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority
6. socialism – 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I would say that we are certainly not 2, 4, or 5, but since the there has been an elimination of private property through the TARP program, and the people now owning a large portion of the automotive industry, and now apparently the people will all have the goods of healthcare services I would say that we lean more towards number 1 than number 3, and number 6 is probably more accurate. We can debate all the live long day as to terminologies; however, for the sake of the argument here I have settled on communism. You will excuse me for not capitalizing any of these forms of ideologies. Since I have neither respect nor tolerance for any of these I do not see it befitting to give their names capitalizations.
Personally, I find the entire Health Care bill unconstitutional and anti-American. I have been asked to point which parts of the bill that fall under the description of this, and my response to this is ALL of it. However, I have spent a great deal of time looking over this bill before a dear friend directed me to a link where this work has already been done for me. http://bit.ly/b8qWq It does aid me in pointing out some of the sections in the bill that would fall under the definition of unconstitutional. Although I do not agree with every aspect of their summary it does seem solid in fact and opinion.
I don’t believe that anyone that has decided to support this bill will even afford themselves the opportunity to read it or consider it unconstitutional. However, if one were to look at section 123, pg 30 there will be a HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE they would find that this committee will be made up of 26 “medical and other experts,” 17 of which will be appointed by the president while the remaining nine will be appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States, an appointee of the President of the United States. Therefore, the President will be indirectly appointing all members of the committee that will each serve a staggered term of 3 years and are not held accountable to anyone, but perhaps the President. This committee will set the health benefit standards upon which your coverage will be based. Is it a Constitutional mandate that the government chooses our medical coverage?
Section 142, pg 42 After reading the ENTIRE section there can be no argument made to the contrary that the Health Choices Commissioner has full authority to force you onto the plan that has been selected for you, by inflicting monetary penalties, “in addition to any other remedies authorized by law!” What other “remedies” has been authorized and by what law?? Where is it in the Constitution that the government has the authority to penalize me for not wanting their plan? Tax my income for not joining a plan that a commissioner has appointed to me and my family as so stated in Section. 401.59B? I think not.
Section 1173A Standardize Electronic Admin. Transactions. Subsection 2(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card.” I already carry a V.A. Medical card so the i.d. card doesn’t bother me so much, but why should the Federal government have access to my medical records and bank account as so stated in Subsection 4 (E) “require the use of a standard electronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part.” One in favor of the bill would simply argue that it is to help pay for the services. Perhaps King George would have done the same if he were afforded the opportunity.
How does the government claim the right to tell doctors what they may earn as stated in Section 1121, subsection 2(c) Target Growth Rate Computation to Services Covered Under Physician Fee Schedule. The government is already doing this with CEO’s salaries where companies accepted government funds from TARP, and now they are going to do this again with our physicians. This is another blatant disregard for the free trade system established in our Constitution; however, proponents of this bill would debate otherwise.
Section 1122 (ii) “COMPONENTS AND ELEMENTS OF WORK- The process described in clause (i) may include validation of work elements (such as time, mental effort and professional judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk) involved with furnishing a service and may include validation of the pre, post, and intra-service components of work.” In other words the “Secretary” gets to look into the services that would provided to you and determine if you are worth the money, time, or effort to render you the services.
Again, the people as a whole own the goods and services that will be provided = communism. How then can this bill be viewed as anything but in accord with the communist form of government? This of course equates to anti-American and anti-Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there granted a right for the Federal government to take over the healthcare industry.
I could continue, but it is the same pattern throughout the bill. One must chase different sections that they lead you to in an attempt to hide what the bill actually does – give the government more power. I am not calling all who want healthcare reform communist. I myself would like to see things improve; however a simple three sentence bill lifting current government restrictions on healthcare would then allow the free trade system to fix the problems. The Federal government would have you believe that the system is in disarray, and this is simply not true. Can anyone name someone that has been turned down if they were to show up at an emergency room for treatment? I personally know people who received medicines from pharmaceuticals when they could not afford it, but the pharmaceuticals are painted as evil, rich, capitalists. Our system is not perfect, but it is not in such disarray that warrants the Federal government to take over.
If you are interested in reading a good deal more research on this bill, by more knowledgeable people than I, you may click on the link below, but you and I both know that you will not.